Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I really do not think that anyone would put themselves through a 9 week trial so as not to be called a slut.
If you think so you're laughable.
Growing up in Ireland as a teenager-20's we were called sluts all the time. You were either frigid or a slut. There was nothing nice said about women.
Ie, someone said to me: jonny told me about you, he said you were a slut. (Jonny lied about being with me).

Or I would hear about another girl 'jenny from a certain village is the village bike, half the lads have been with her", and a lad would say back "half, I'd say 3/4, hahaha". The men would lie about being with women, and then call them sluts, and we all (the women)knew it.
There was alot of cruel misogyny growing up in Ireland.
Time for things to change.

But they do. The Van Persie and Hann cases being both examples of women making false accusations.
It does happen.

[Deleted User]

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I really do not think that anyone would put themselves through a 9 week trial so as not to be called a slut.
If you think so you're laughable.
Growing up in Ireland as a teenager-20's we were called sluts all the time. You were either frigid or a slut. There was nothing nice said about women.
Ie, someone said to me: jonny told me about you, he said you were a slut. (Jonny lied about being with me).

Or I would hear about another girl 'jenny from a certain village is the village bike, half the lads have been with her", and a lad would say back "half, I'd say 3/4, hahaha". The men would lie about being with women, and then call them sluts, and we all (the women)knew it.
There was alot of cruel misogyny growing up in Ireland.
Time for things to change.

As ive previously stated, false accusations are not a total rarity. It is possible that accusations are made without considering the consequences to them or the accused.

See Quinton Hann the snooker player. And also see former footballer Dave Jones who was accused of abusing a youngster when he worked as a care worker and was put through hell for nothing

As for your anecdotes, women too can be bitches with regard to humiliating and gossip spreading about other women.

Squatter wrote: »

I'm still puzzled by the fact that that those two gins were drank neat. Doesn't add up.

Didnt he say it was the first night he was allowed to drink in a long time, which also brings up binge drinking in sports.

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie.

Stop trying to find a ****ing issue with everything I post.

I'm saying from her perspective, she's surrounded by two, big strong rugby players and she froze because she saw no way out, whereas if she said no, they probably would have backed off.

I'm not trying to imply anything else.

Seriously, stop getting so ****ing offended over the smallest things.

It is not a small thing to invent things the facts don't back up.

And the fact her is the only sober witness we have said what she witnessed was consensual.

Inventing scenarios is not on.

Foxtrol

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I really do not think that anyone would put themselves through a 9 week trial so as not to be called a slut.
If you think so you're laughable.
Growing up in Ireland as a teenager-20's we were called sluts all the time. You were either frigid or a slut. There was nothing nice said about women.
Ie, someone said to me: jonny told me about you, he said you were a slut. (Jonny lied about being with me).

Or I would hear about another girl 'jenny from a certain village is the village bike, half the lads have been with her", and a lad would say back "half, I'd say 3/4, hahaha". The men would lie about being with women, and then call them sluts, and we all (the women)knew it.
There was alot of cruel misogyny growing up in Ireland.
Time for things to change.

In the years before this incident a woman ended up leaving the country due to the gossip, video, and chat screenshots from the next day of her night with 2 rugby players.

The woman in this case also thought there could have been photos taken and she had to be pushed by her friends to report the incident. Aside from her no one knows why she took the actions she did (given the alcohol consumption maybe she doesn't even know herself) but it is easy for a lie to one person snowball into something you can't stop.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie.

Stop trying to find a ****ing issue with everything I post.

I'm saying from her perspective, she's surrounded by two, big strong rugby players and she froze because she saw no way out, whereas if she said no, they probably would have backed off.

I'm not trying to imply anything else.

Seriously, stop getting so ****ing offended over the smallest things.

It is not a small thing to invent things the facts don't back up.

And the fact her is the only sober witness we have said what she witnessed was consensual.

Inventing scenarios is not on.

I'm not inventing facts.

I'm giving my view on what I think happened, using the evidence that was displayed in court.

You have a different view, which is fine.

However, you're the one trying to say that I'm 'slanting' the case against the defence.

I've said I believe Jackson and Olding's perceptions that they believe it was consensual.

However, I also believe her perception that she believes she was raped.

It is possible to do both, and the reason why is because she said she froze, and the lads were to have no idea that she had withdrawn consent.

Stop ****ing following me to find offence with everything I post. I see you went very quiet on the last misrepresentation you made.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-man-jailed-rape-2-3660816-Oct2017/
Man jailed for three years for rape at a house party. This is one of many cases.

Any comment on the women that do cry wolf? Or are you going to continue to bury your head?

skearnsot

Appledreams15 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-man-jailed-rape-2-3660816-Oct2017/
Man jailed for three years for rape at a house party. This is one of many cases.

Some rapes happen in the marital bed

Fann Linn wrote: »

Any comment on the women that do cry wolf? Or are you going to continue to bury your head?

Why would I comment on that when I am replying to a person who says that rape at house parties doesn't exist?

Ken.

Mod-Some posts and replies to and from a troll have been removed. Please try to not feed them.

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not inventing facts.

I'm giving my view on what I think happened, using the evidence that was displayed in court.

You have a different view, which is fine.

However, you're the one trying to say that I'm 'slanting' the case against the defence.

I've said I believe Jackson and Olding's perceptions that they believe it was consensual.

However, I also believe her perception that she believes she was raped.

It is possible to do both, and the reason why is because she said she froze, and the lads were to have no idea that she had withdrawn consent.

Stop ****ing following me to find offence with everything I post. I see you went very quiet on the last misrepresentation you made.

No, you corrected the record on the what you had said.

I have previously pointed out sensationalist and inaccurate references to the trial facts by other posters, don't think yourself unique.

And I see you corrected another poster there too. Is that something only you are allowed to do?

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would I comment on that when I am replying to a person who says that rape at house parties doesn't exist?

Okay so. Bury the head.
False accusations do happen however. Links posted earlier.

Muff Richardson II

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You cant leave us hanging, give us the details

two of them bent over the end of the bed chatting to each other about the price of rice or something in malay, one of them checking their nails and tutting whilst i was stumbling around the room with my bags around my ankles trying to pull off the performance of a lifetime. the two hoors ganged up on me. absolutely no understanding of customer being always right and all that. hugely disappointing experience. i completely empathise with complainant. learning experience.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not inventing facts.

I'm giving my view on what I think happened, using the evidence that was displayed in court.

You have a different view, which is fine.

However, you're the one trying to say that I'm 'slanting' the case against the defence.

I've said I believe Jackson and Olding's perceptions that they believe it was consensual.

However, I also believe her perception that she believes she was raped.

It is possible to do both, and the reason why is because she said she froze, and the lads were to have no idea that she had withdrawn consent.

Stop ****ing following me to find offence with everything I post. I see you went very quiet on the last misrepresentation you made.

No, you corrected the record on the what you had said.

I have previously pointed out sensationalist and inaccurate references to the trial facts by other posters, don't think yourself unique.

And I see you corrected another poster there too. Is that something only you are allowed to do?

You're not 'correcting me' on anything though, you're saying my opinion is wrong and that I'm trying to put a slant on the case.

Absolutely not the case whatsoever. What is 'incorrect' about the facts I have presented?

Remember, me saying I believe both sides' perceptions is an opinion, not a fact.

Me saying the complainant was a credible witness is an opinion, not a fact.

You claimed I was showcasing 'nasty tactics' by the defence and used two examples of the defence challenging the judge and trying to get the case thrown out. When did I say and how are these percieved to be nasty tactics?

I don't mind debate, but you're literally trying to find outrage and offence with my posts when there is nothing there but my opinion.

Piss. Off.

Foxtrol

Appledreams15 wrote: »

That's not true. Paddy Jackson said in his latest statement that he did not want to leave.

If he had a choice I would expect that his preference would be for everyone to respect the decision of the jury so he could stay and represent his country. However, given the circumstances he'll take the nice bag of money from the IRFU, add it to the nice bag of money he'll make in France, and likely add to it the nice bag of money he'll get from the BBC. Unfortunately a decent chunk of that will be going to cover his legal expenses but at least he will be away from the mob who would be following him around demanding his head if he stayed here.

Faugheen wrote: »

You're not 'correcting me' on anything though, you're saying my opinion is wrong and that I'm trying to put a slant on the case.

Absolutely not the case whatsoever. What is 'incorrect' about the facts I have presented?

Remember, me saying I believe both sides' perceptions is an opinion, not a fact.

Me saying the complainant was a credible witness is an opinion, not a fact.

You claimed I was showcasing 'nasty tactics' by the defence and used two examples of the defence challenging the judge and trying to get the case thrown out. When did I say and how are these percieved to be nasty tactics?

I don't mind debate, but you're literally trying to find outrage and offence with my posts when there is nothing there but my opinion.

Piss. Off.

Where is the evidence that she was 'surrounded by big strong rugby players'?

The inference here being there was force used. Evidence of that would be good too.

hatrickpatrick

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ive a suspicion their claim of being "top shaggers" was made toungue in cheek, and as part of their childish and immature "bants". I seriously doubt anyone thinks they are in fact a top shagger, particulary when appraising anothers performance.

Even if they did mean it, what's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with being or believing one's self to be a top shagger unless it isn't consensual, which a court had cleared these people of.

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Is must be concerning for women when they read statements like the above.

Paddy has more understanding of his failings than some of his supporters on here.

What, specifically, did he do wrong? Be precise.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

You're not 'correcting me' on anything though, you're saying my opinion is wrong and that I'm trying to put a slant on the case.

Absolutely not the case whatsoever. What is 'incorrect' about the facts I have presented?

Remember, me saying I believe both sides' perceptions is an opinion, not a fact.

Me saying the complainant was a credible witness is an opinion, not a fact.

You claimed I was showcasing 'nasty tactics' by the defence and used two examples of the defence challenging the judge and trying to get the case thrown out. When did I say and how are these percieved to be nasty tactics?

I don't mind debate, but you're literally trying to find outrage and offence with my posts when there is nothing there but my opinion.

Piss. Off.

Where is the evidence that she was 'surrounded by big strong rugby players'?

The inference here being there was force used. Evidence of that would be good too.

I haven't presented that as a fact. I used it as part my perception as to what she could have been thinking.

Nothing about my post implies force was used. Again you read that, got offended, and got the wrong idea.

I'll spell out what I meant because you're clearly the only person that doesn't ****ing get it.

In HER mind, Olding comes in, and she finds herself in a position she doesn't want to be in (surrounded by (in her mind) two big strong rugby players), she felt intimidated (through no fault of Olding or Jackson), 'froze', and then just let whatever happened, happen.

I made no implication that force was used. All of the above is not being displayed as fact. There was no evidence of force being used when Olding entered the room, so why would I imply that?

Again, YOU are assuming I'm saying something completely hidden in my messages when I'm ****ing not. I'm sorry if you're not intelligent enough to realise that, but I'm not implying anything you think I'm implying nor am I presenting any of the above as a fact.

[Deleted User]

Foxtrol wrote: »

If he had a choice I would expect that his preference would be for everyone to respect the decision of the jury so he could stay and represent his country. However, given the circumstances he'll take the nice bag of money from the IRFU, add it to the nice bag of money he'll make in France, and likely add to it the nice bag of money he'll get from the BBC. Unfortunately a decent chunk of that will be going to cover his legal expenses but at least he will be away from the mob who would be following him around demanding his head if he stayed here.

Will he not win his claim for legal expenses?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What, specifically, did he do wrong? Be precise.

what he apologised for.

Deleted User wrote: »

As ive previously stated, false accusations are not a total rarity. It is possible that accusations are made without considering the consequences to them or the accused.

See Quinton Hann the snooker player. And also see former footballer Dave Jones who was accused of abusing a youngster when he worked as a care worker and was put through hell for nothing

As for your anecdotes, women too can be bitches with regard to humiliating and gossip spreading about other women.

Doesn't Ireland's 5% rape conviction rate give us a big concern also?

Faugheen wrote: »

I haven't presented that as a fact. I used it as part my perception as to what she could have been thinking.

Nothing about my post implies force was used. Again you read that, got offended, and got the wrong idea.

I'll spell out what I meant because you're clearly the only person that doesn't ****ing get it.

In HER mind, Olding comes in, and she finds herself in a position she doesn't want to be in (surrounded by (in her mind) two big strong rugby players), she felt intimidated (through no fault of Olding or Jackson), 'froze', and then just let whatever happened, happen.

I made no implication that force was used. All of the above is not being displayed as fact. There was no evidence of force being used when Olding entered the room, so why would I imply that?

Again, YOU are assuming I'm saying something completely hidden in my messages when I'm ****ing not. I'm sorry if you're not intelligent enough to realise that, but I'm not implying anything you think I'm implying nor am I presenting any of the above as a fact.

I think we get what you are doing, all right.
I think you think that your undermining of the case is subtle...it isn't. It is fairly blatant in your postings on this site.

There is literally no evidence to suggest she was there under duress or that she was frozen.

The actual evidence we have from the only independent witness to the events in the room was that what was happening was consensual and that it looked like all were enjoying what was happening.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland's 5% rape conviction rate give us a big concern also?

As does false accusations.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Will he not win his claim for legal expenses?

I would very much hope so given how the case should have never made it to court but I have no idea how that process works. If he does win then he'll be doing very well financially out of the situation, even if it wasn't his ideal outcome.

Squatter

Deleted User wrote: »

Will he not win his claim for legal expenses?

Even if he does, it's highly unlikely that he would get the full cost of the expensive team that he employed to defend him

Furthermore, given that the information that the IRFU has paid off his contract is in the public domain, I suspect that he'll find it hard to convince the beak that he can't afford to pay a significant portion of his costs.

(And it will be even harder if news that he has signed for a big French or English club breaks before the hearing.)

Squatter wrote: »

Even if he does, it's highly unlikely that he would get the full cost of the expensive team that he employed to defend him

Furthermore, given that the information that the IRFU has paid off his contract is in the public domain, I suspect that he'll find it hard to convince the beak that he can't afford to pay most of his costs.

(And it will be even harder if news that he has signed for a big French or English club breaks before the hearing.)

He has applied for 100,000 of his costs afaik.

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

You suggested that the young lady, who arrived home sobbing, got a good deal in that she got two men the two men only got one woman.

If you consider that empathy you need to go back to school. I thought that what you said was vile.

You know your winning an argument with a woman when they change the subject but continue to argue.
Go back and read the context of that to which you keep referring to, bearing in mind that which ive spelled out to you.

We're done. You're going around in circles with your fingers in your ears (thats figuratively speaking, not literal), offering nothing but "but..but...she was crying..."

[Deleted User]

Squatter wrote: »

Even if he does, it's highly unlikely that he would get the full cost of the expensive team that he employed to defend him

Furthermore, given that the information that the IRFU has paid off his contract is in the public domain, I suspect that he'll find it hard to convince the beak that he can't afford to pay a significant portion of his costs.

(And it will be even harder if news that he has signed for a big French or English club breaks before the hearing.)

I wouldn't have thought his wealth or lack thereof, would have any bearing on his claim?